Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
|
Claude encountered an error —— View job I'll analyze this and get back to you. |
PedroBinotto
requested review from
LeonardoVieira1630 and
pikonha
as code owners
|
Claude encountered an error —— View job I'll analyze this and get back to you. |
…ticapture into chore/backend-ci-environment
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 3cd4fef459
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
| if (process.env.CI === "true" || process.env.CI === "1") { | ||
| await seed(pgClient, schema, { count: 1000 }); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This CI-only startup block seeds the database without first applying migrations, so start:aave will fail on a fresh CI database because the target tables do not exist yet. In the same commit, cmd/index.ts adds migrate(...) before seed(...), which avoids that failure path; cmd/aave.ts needs the same ordering to make AAVE CI boots reliable.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
|
🚅 Deployed to the pr-ee8d7f-1825 environment in anticapture-infra
26 services not affected by this PR
|
railway-app
Bot
temporarily deployed
to
anticapture-infra / anticapture-pr-1825
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 8a91aa27cf
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
| schema: "./src/database/schema.ts", | ||
| dialect: "postgresql", | ||
| dbCredentials: { | ||
| url: `${process.env.DATABASE_URL}?options=-c%20search_path%3Danticapture`, |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: a4d1e41297
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
| "@apollo/client": | ||
| specifier: ^3.13.8 | ||
| version: 3.14.0(@types/react@19.2.8)(graphql-ws@6.0.7(crossws@0.3.5)(graphql@16.13.1)(ws@8.18.0(bufferutil@4.0.9)(utf-8-validate@5.0.10)))(graphql@16.13.1)(react-dom@19.2.3(react@19.2.3))(react@19.2.3) | ||
| version: 3.14.0(@types/react@19.2.8)(graphql-ws@6.0.7(crossws@0.3.5)(graphql@16.13.1)(ws@7.5.10(bufferutil@4.0.9)(utf-8-validate@5.0.10)))(graphql@16.13.1)(react-dom@19.2.3(react@19.2.3))(react@19.2.3) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This lockfile entry now binds graphql-ws@6.0.7 to ws@7.5.10, but the same lockfile declares graphql-ws’s ws peer as ^8 (pnpm-lock.yaml package metadata section). That mismatch can break installs under stricter peer enforcement and can cause runtime issues on subscription code paths that expect the v8 WebSocket API. Please regenerate the lockfile so this resolver uses a ws@8.x peer.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
2 participants
No description provided.